Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.

Some members here sometimes comment that, regarding morality, some other member(s) don't know the difference between ontology and epistemology - the explanation given is that one refers to whether there's such a thing as right and wrong and the other refers to what's right and what's wrong. Sometimes however they also comment that if some things are always wrong no matter what anyone thinks, that means morality is objective (which they agree with). So I'm finding it a little confusing - what's the argument here exactly regarding ontology and epistemology? It's one thing to say someone doesn't understand the difference but for anyone who says that, what's your purpose using these terms? Please spin it out a little for a layperson

There is no argument regarding ontology and epistemology, ontology vs epistemology, or something such. Rather, it is more rather that the moral argument Christians make is an ontological argument, and Atheists generally nearly always respond to it epistemically.

So for example, when Christians argue simply that all humans are endowed with a moral law we all recognise which presses upon us, an Atheist normally inevitably responds with something like, "What is this moral law? The 10 Commandments!?" or, "You mean your moral God who commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, or Israel to slaughter woman and children in the OT?" Such responses appear to be more a "red herring" tactic which distracts from the actual argument made, which is merely that we all recognise a law of right and wrong.

If you want the moral argument spat out for a lay person, then visit my recent thread, Mere Christianity YouTube - CS Lewis Doodle and watch through those videos on CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. These videos get to the heart of any such arguments in I think a rather plain and detailed manner.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

A simple way to start understanding the issue is this:Subjective morality = WHAT is good.Objective morality/absolute morality = There IS a good.

In short, there are two discussions to be had and they are the subjective WHAT is good and the objective there IS a good.

See, there are things that even the most militant skeptic in regards to good will agree and they are, as examples:Raping of infantsStealing

We know this because there has never been a society or group recorded that views stealing and raping an infant as acceptable ( much less good).This tells us that there is such a thing as GOOD and such a thing as somethings are NOT to be done.

We have evidence and proof that there is objective good and that not all that is good or bad is subjective.

So, morals are objective ( at least the root of moral is) and for that it must mean that morals MUST transcend the individual AND the group.

Kurieuo wrote:There is no argument regarding ontology and epistemology, ontology vs epistemology, or something such. Rather, it is more rather that the moral argument Christians make is an ontological argument, and Atheists generally nearly always respond to it epistemically.

So for example, when Christians argue simply that all humans are endowed with a moral law we all recognise which presses upon us, an Atheist normally inevitably responds with something like, "What is this moral law? The 10 Commandments!?" or, "You mean your moral God who commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, or Israel to slaughter woman and children in the OT?" Such responses appear to be more a "red herring" tactic which distracts from the actual argument made, which is merely that we all recognise a law of right and wrong.

If you want the moral argument spat out for a lay person, then visit my recent thread, Mere Christianity YouTube - CS Lewis Doodle and watch through those videos on CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. These videos get to the heart of any such arguments in I think a rather plain and detailed manner.

Thanks - I read most of Mere Christianity a little while ago (I should really finish it) but those videos are good. I think he was saying that details of moral codes differ from place to place (and time) but the basic idea that we should be decent and unselfish (whatever that means to the people) remains. Is that the gist of it?

PaulSacramento wrote:A simple way to start understanding the issue is this:Subjective morality = WHAT is good.Objective morality/absolute morality = There IS a good.

In short, there are two discussions to be had and they are the subjective WHAT is good and the objective there IS a good.

See, there are things that even the most militant skeptic in regards to good will agree and they are, as examples:Raping of infantsStealing

We know this because there has never been a society or group recorded that views stealing and raping an infant as acceptable ( much less good).This tells us that there is such a thing as GOOD and such a thing as somethings are NOT to be done.

We have evidence and proof that there is objective good and that not all that is good or bad is subjective.

So, morals are objective ( at least the root of moral is) and for that it must mean that morals MUST transcend the individual AND the group.

Thank you. I was seeing a kind of contradiction between saying, 'some things are always wrong' and 'it's about whether there is a good and bad, not what is good or bad'. But are you saying the fact that everyone agrees on the morality of some actions shows that those morals are objective, or does it show that the 'good' in the universally-agreed good actions is objective? I'm confused again, but then I'm tired

Kurieuo wrote:There is no argument regarding ontology and epistemology, ontology vs epistemology, or something such. Rather, it is more rather that the moral argument Christians make is an ontological argument, and Atheists generally nearly always respond to it epistemically.

So for example, when Christians argue simply that all humans are endowed with a moral law we all recognise which presses upon us, an Atheist normally inevitably responds with something like, "What is this moral law? The 10 Commandments!?" or, "You mean your moral God who commands Abraham to sacrifice his son, or Israel to slaughter woman and children in the OT?" Such responses appear to be more a "red herring" tactic which distracts from the actual argument made, which is merely that we all recognise a law of right and wrong.

If you want the moral argument spat out for a lay person, then visit my recent thread, Mere Christianity YouTube - CS Lewis Doodle and watch through those videos on CS Lewis' Mere Christianity. These videos get to the heart of any such arguments in I think a rather plain and detailed manner.

Thanks - I read most of Mere Christianity a little while ago (I should really finish it) but those videos are good. I think he was saying that details of moral codes differ from place to place (and time) but the basic idea that we should be decent and unselfish (whatever that means to the people) remains. Is that the gist of it?

Yes, that noone believes selfishness to be honourable trait was one example. CS Lewis argues that there is a common thread that runs through all humanity which we all share, that those who disagree with the "law of nature" (aka "right and wrong") often try to overplay differences between people.

The crux of the argument is that we all feel this law of what is right and wrong pressing down upon us. Yet then, what is this we feel conflicted by within ourselves, and often feel burdened by when deciding between whether we should do what is right or that which benefits us? CS Lewis argues that we can't change this law we all feel pressing upon us, anymore than we can make 2+2=5. The law of nature is as real as math and something we acknowledge rather than construct.

Really, I think Lewis says it all in Mere Christianity, and I find those videos really help to digest his arguments more quickly and easily. If you follow and understand what he is saying, then you generally understand the moral argument regardless of certain terms often used when debating such that you may find confusing.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

PaulSacramento wrote:A simple way to start understanding the issue is this:Subjective morality = WHAT is good.Objective morality/absolute morality = There IS a good.

In short, there are two discussions to be had and they are the subjective WHAT is good and the objective there IS a good.

See, there are things that even the most militant skeptic in regards to good will agree and they are, as examples:Raping of infantsStealing

We know this because there has never been a society or group recorded that views stealing and raping an infant as acceptable ( much less good).This tells us that there is such a thing as GOOD and such a thing as somethings are NOT to be done.

We have evidence and proof that there is objective good and that not all that is good or bad is subjective.

So, morals are objective ( at least the root of moral is) and for that it must mean that morals MUST transcend the individual AND the group.

Thank you. I was seeing a kind of contradiction between saying, 'some things are always wrong' and 'it's about whether there is a good and bad, not what is good or bad'. But are you saying the fact that everyone agrees on the morality of some actions shows that those morals are objective, or does it show that the 'good' in the universally-agreed good actions is objective? I'm confused again, but then I'm tired

For people to agree on what is good or bad ( regardless of what they agree on) there means that there is an objective view that there is such a thing AS GOOD and the absence of that being BAD.For their to be a subjective view of "A", there must first be an objective view that there is "A".

Stealing is a fine example because in no culture and in no point of recorded history has stealing been viewed as good.That stealing is not good is not subjective because no one agrees that it is good, so we have at least ONE case of a SPECIFIC act that is objectively NOT GOOD.

PaulSacramento wrote:Stealing is a fine example because in no culture and in no point of recorded history has stealing been viewed as good.That stealing is not good is not subjective because no one agrees that it is good, so we have at least ONE case of a SPECIFIC act that is objectively NOT GOOD.

I disagree. Stealing is good. For reference, see Dave Roberts in game 4, 2004 ALCS.

Which makes stealing subjectively right, because it sucked for the Yankees.

1 Corinthians 1:99 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."

PaulSacramento wrote:Stealing is a fine example because in no culture and in no point of recorded history has stealing been viewed as good.That stealing is not good is not subjective because no one agrees that it is good, so we have at least ONE case of a SPECIFIC act that is objectively NOT GOOD.

Did you mean no society or culture has agreed it's good? I can imagine some hardened criminals would think it's very good to rob someone else for their own purposes as long as they get away with it. It could be argued that the vast majority of people agree it's wrong because they wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen and also because it's illegal. Criminals wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen either but I don't know if they'd think it was wrong exactly; they'd probably just be angry without caring about the morality of it. It does seem all societies have agreed on the morality of stealing and some other actions.

PaulSacramento wrote:Stealing is a fine example because in no culture and in no point of recorded history has stealing been viewed as good.That stealing is not good is not subjective because no one agrees that it is good, so we have at least ONE case of a SPECIFIC act that is objectively NOT GOOD.

Did you mean no society or culture has agreed it's good? I can imagine some hardened criminals would think it's very good to rob someone else for their own purposes as long as they get away with it. It could be argued that the vast majority of people agree it's wrong because they wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen and also because it's illegal. Criminals wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen either but I don't know if they'd think it was wrong exactly; they'd probably just be angry without caring about the morality of it. It does seem all societies have agreed on the morality of stealing and some other actions.

PaulSacramento wrote:Stealing is a fine example because in no culture and in no point of recorded history has stealing been viewed as good.That stealing is not good is not subjective because no one agrees that it is good, so we have at least ONE case of a SPECIFIC act that is objectively NOT GOOD.

Did you mean no society or culture has agreed it's good? I can imagine some hardened criminals would think it's very good to rob someone else for their own purposes as long as they get away with it. It could be argued that the vast majority of people agree it's wrong because they wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen and also because it's illegal. Criminals wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen either but I don't know if they'd think it was wrong exactly; they'd probably just be angry without caring about the morality of it. It does seem all societies have agreed on the morality of stealing and some other actions.

PaulSacramento wrote:Stealing is a fine example because in no culture and in no point of recorded history has stealing been viewed as good.That stealing is not good is not subjective because no one agrees that it is good, so we have at least ONE case of a SPECIFIC act that is objectively NOT GOOD.

Did you mean no society or culture has agreed it's good? I can imagine some hardened criminals would think it's very good to rob someone else for their own purposes as long as they get away with it. It could be argued that the vast majority of people agree it's wrong because they wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen and also because it's illegal. Criminals wouldn't want anything of theirs to be stolen either but I don't know if they'd think it was wrong exactly; they'd probably just be angry without caring about the morality of it. It does seem all societies have agreed on the morality of stealing and some other actions.

A criminal would NOT view it good if someone stole from them.

No, but is that a sense of morality - right vs wrong?

Yes, that is a starting point.Understanding that doing something/that something is wrong ( or good), regardless of anything else.One may steal food to feed their children BUT that doesn't make it right, it merely makes it an act that may have needed to be done.

Rarely is there black or white but a whole lot of grey. I don’t think that supports subjective morality but rather actually supports objectivity.As the same narrative surrounds basic principles. Thou shall not kill... but where does self defence come into play? Does revenge or retribution shift to murder when it’s premeditated? Thou shall not steal....when not for greed but for love and survival it blurs the lines of morality. Thou shall not commit adultry... when a person is abused and their abuser won’t allow a separation due to control, did they ever live up to the definition of a betrothed? Thou shall honour thy mother and father....there are kids who have been terribly abused and mistreated by parents. Honour is not demanded but earned and so many parents haven’t earned that respect.A misuse of objectivity has placed very vulnerable people into an atmosphere of abuse and neglect.It is seen across society so the hypocrisy is viewed as subjectivity. The idea that there are circumstances that changes pretext, ergo a whole lot of grey, therefore no objective morality.There are all kinds of situations, very rarely is anything black or white But I don’t think that takes away from the basic principles of morality..The same principles are echoed through every society, past and present but our narrative and/or our understanding of these principles differ. Free will is a gift.We must be free to make choices, every life choice is an expression of our will.The grey that exists within morality is our definition of self and free will. We won’t always be right but we have the right to be wrong. That is freedomFreedom of self and spirit Which is why I think we are destined to pertually confuse objectivity and subjectivity and never really know where the line is drawn.

melanie wrote:Rarely is there black or white but a whole lot of grey. I don’t think that supports subjective morality but rather actually supports objectivity.As the same narrative surrounds basic principles. Thou shall not kill... but where does self defence come into play? Does revenge or retribution shift to murder when it’s premeditated? Thou shall not steal....when not for greed but for love and survival it blurs the lines of morality. Thou shall not commit adultry... when a person is abused and their abuser won’t allow a separation due to control, did they ever live up to the definition of a betrothed? Thou shall honour thy mother and father....there are kids who have been terribly abused and mistreated by parents. Honour is not demanded but earned and so many parents haven’t earned that respect.A misuse of objectivity has placed very vulnerable people into an atmosphere of abuse and neglect.It is seen across society so the hypocrisy is viewed as subjectivity. The idea that there are circumstances that changes pretext, ergo a whole lot of grey, therefore no objective morality.There are all kinds of situations, very rarely is anything black or white But I don’t think that takes away from the basic principles of morality..The same principles are echoed through every society, past and present but our narrative and/or our understanding of these principles differ. Free will is a gift.We must be free to make choices, every life choice is an expression of our will.The grey that exists within morality is our definition of self and free will. We won’t always be right but we have the right to be wrong. That is freedomFreedom of self and spirit Which is why I think we are destined to pertually confuse objectivity and subjectivity and never really know where the line is drawn.

Only God knows where the line is drawn. What concerns me absolutism. No grey area. Black and white. ALL sins are the same under God. ALL sins are equal. Why? Becuase they are sins. This kind of reply feels intellectually lazy to me. However my concern is people who say this are right.

Your what if questions are too much to address but I constantly wonder similar things. When I've sinned it's not becuase I love sin. I don't "get off" when or if "forced" into lying or "stealing". It should all be relative. Not absolute. I don't "Loveth a lie" or enjoy "devisith wicked imaginations" or "revel in sin". I HATE sin. I hate iniquity. I hate it.

When I do these things it's a response or being "forced" to. I might lie to my Mom because I don't want her to worry about me. I might lie to a client because he is an irritating ignoramus constantly calling me and emailing me eating up my time. I already know the answer or how long a project will take but telling him the "truth" will result in him wasting my time x1000 more plus everyone else's. And since time is money, putting his file as roundabout loss on the books. So I lie, cash his check, then polity tell him I'm not interested in handing his account anymore.

Here is a "stealing" example. Long time ago, this lady overseas ripped me off $10,000. It was a planned deliberate premeditated intentional theft. So by way of thinking lying scheming manipulating etc I was able to "steal" back half the amount forcing her to reimburse her largest client (which I knew she would do or she would go out of business). Half was better than nothing. It was the best i could do. She stole 10k from me my money. I "stole" it back from her client knowing she would be forced to pay them or lose 100x as much. Just a quick example . This means I'm a thief manipular devisith wicked imaginations and going to burn in hell because I'm "gaming". Never mind the details who cares who did what to who. Thou shall not steal.

During another instance an employee of a company tried to cut me out to glorify himself. Now I'm faced with a most serious situation owe me 100k and rent is due. I'm looking losing my entire business which I've worked 80-100 hour weeks with blood sweat and tears ..... Why? Ha. Get this. So the corporate drone young hotshot gets a "golden star" on his shoulder, an "employee of the month" photo in the office .. and a "atta boy!" award (when you make your boss rich he slaps you on the back and says "atta boy!" But of course you never get a raise just a name only promotion)

I wasn't having it. So I played chess and got rid of him. In the end he got a new higher paying better job with a better company and I didn't lose a hundred thousand dollars. The downside? his filthy rich scumbag boss didn't richer. Meaning he couldn't buy 100k more in decadence, throw bigger parties, and his idiot stripper wife go on a shopping spree in Beverly Hills for the newest 10k purses. And I got paid what was rightfully and justly mine which sin tried to take away from me. The ends justified the means.

Most Christians would call me a sinner for this. When the situation calls for it - I'm a liar. Untrustworthy. A thief. A "manipulator" with "schemes" and "wicked imaginations". A sinner. What about the specific situation and all the parties involved etc? It's as if I'm made to feel God doesn't care about nor judge the details. A sin is a sin is a sin.

Black and white judgements make no sense to me.

I don't want those i love to worry, a con artist steal from me, and lose everything i worked for for some young guns vanity and pride. These are just extreme examples of course but I've seen too many good kind religious people "hide behind morality" while those with no moral compass would run them over. Take advantage etc. It's wrong. I fight fire (sin) with fire (sin) it is only fair.

So being judged in absolutist black and white terms scares me and I'm praying God takes the grey into each consideration and renders heavenly judgement accordingly. I am very concerned about going to hell lately after reading this book, watching all these you tube videos, and experiencing physical proof of existence after death.